DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 July 2026 has been entered.
Applicant's response has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Claims 7, 13 and 15 have been cancelled.
The Information Disclosure Statement filed is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 2 April 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. Signed copies of the IDS documents are included with this Office Action.
Claim Rejections-35 USC § 112(b)-Indefiniteness
The outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments cancelling claim 15.
Newly recited rejection are necessitated by claim amendment herein.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended to recite, “comparing, by the at least one computer, the first frequency spectrum with the second frequency spectrum to select one of the first frequency spectrum and the second frequency spectrum for use in determining the state of the artery, the selection based on spectral differences of the first frequency spectrum and the second frequency spectrum indicative of the state of the artery”, wherein the claim recites a result of the use in determining the state of the artery based on differences in spectra without any steps by which the function is achieved. The step is indefinite with respect to a comparison wherein it is unclear as to what is being compared such that any selection would be made. No actual selection occurs in the claim limitation. Clarification is requested through clearer claim language.
Further, claims 1 and 10 recite, “determining, by the at least one computer, whether the state of the artery is the active state or the passive state based on the frequency components and corresponding amplitudes of the selected one of the first frequency spectrum and second frequency spectrum”, wherein the claim is unclear with respect to making the determination of the state of the artery based on a frequency of components and amplitudes that follows from the issues above wherein no selection is actually made that adheres to any specific criteria. The assessment of a state of the artery as active of passive is not defined by any measure by which a frequency and amplitude of one of a first or second frequency spectra would indicate any state of an artery. Typically, for example, a comparison to a particular measure or reference would be included such that a frequency and amplitude from a spectrum or spectra would fall within a threshold or range whereby a “state” could be determined. This is exemplary only. Clarification is requested through clearer claim language. Dependent claims fail to remedy the above and are also rejected herein. It is noted that claims 9 and 14 compare a first frequency spectrum with a reference spectrum and a state is determined in part on the comparison, however this does not elucidate the criteria needed for such state evaluation and said claims also fail to remedy the above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The instant rejection reflects the framework as outlined in the MPEP at 2106.04:
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
(2B) If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1 Analysis: Are claims directed to process, machine, manufacture/composition of matter
With respect to step (1): yes, the claims are directed to a method and system for converting physiological signals.
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis: Do claims recite abstract idea
With respect to step (2A)(1), the claims recite abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the (2A)(1) evaluation, the claims are found herein to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and in conjunction with mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas).
The claim steps to abstract ideas are as follows:
Claim 1:
Mixing…the first signal (S1) and the second signal (S2) to obtain a mixed signal (M), which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see, for example, the Specification at [0069] describing the mixing process as a linear combination that includes the formula M(t)=a S 1(t)+b S 2 +C). Said operation can be performed using pen and paper or with the aid of a computer.
Generating… a first frequency spectrum based at least in part on the mixed signal (M) by subjecting the mixed signal (M) to a first integral transform, which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see, for example, the Specification at [0032] describing the process by integral transform; [0077] describing integral transform T to the missed signal M(t) in the form M→T[M]). Said operation can be performed using pen and paper or with the aid of a computer.
Generating… a second frequency spectrum based at least in part on the mixed signal (M) by subjecting the mixed signal (M) to a second integral transform different from the first integral transform, which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see, for example, the Specification at [0032] describing the process by integral transform; [0077] describing integral transform T to the missed signal M(t) in the form M→T[M]). Said operation can be performed using pen and paper or with the aid of a computer.
Comparing…the first frequency spectrum with the second frequency spectrum, to select one of the first frequency spectrum and the second frequency spectrum for use in determining the state of the artery, which is an abstract process step performed by mental assessment of comparing data and of mathematical analysis (see, for example, the Specification at [0032] describing the process by integral transform; [0077] describing integral transform T to the missed signal M(t) in the form M→T[M]). Said operation can be performed using pen and paper or with the aid of a computer.
Determining…whether the state of the artery is the active state or the passive state based on the frequency components and corresponding amplitudes of the selected one of the first frequency spectrum and second frequency spectrum, wherein said operation is a mental step of comparing one data to another. There are no specific steps or parameters that define what is the process for said determining and under the BRI said operations can be performed by mental assessment.
Claims 3:
normalizing the first signal (S1) and/or normalizing the second signal (S2), prior to mixing the first signal (S1) and the second signal (S2), which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see the Specification at [0073] describing the process of normalization as, for example: dividing the first signal S1(t) by a first maximum value |S1| attained by the first signal over the first time interval t1≤t≤T1 with predetermined interval boundaries t1, T1. Similarly, normalizing the second signal S2(t) may comprise dividing the second signal S2(t) by a second maximum value |S2| attained by the second signal over the second time interval t2≤t≤T2 with predetermined interval boundaries t2, T2). Said operation can be performed using pen and paper or with the aid of a computer.
Claim 4:
normalizing the first signal (S1) comprises dividing the first signal (S1) by a first maximum value attained by the first signal (S1) over a predetermined first time interval; and/or
normalizing the second signal (S2) comprises dividing the second signal (S2) by a second maximum value attained by the second signal (S2) over a predetermined second time interval, which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see the Specification at [0073]). Said operation can be performed using pen and paper or with the aid of a computer.
Claim 5:
mixing the first signal (S1) and the second signal (S2) comprises linearly combining the first signal (S1) and the second signal (S2), in particular with equal weights of the first signal (S1) and the second signal (S2) which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see the Specification at [0032]). Said operation can be performed using pen and paper or with the aid of a computer. Claim 6 further defines the “mixed signal” terms and further defines the judicial exception, as such.
Claim 9:
comparing the first frequency spectrum with a reference frequency spectrum, and/or with a second frequency spectrum…determining…, wherein said operation of “comparing” data and “determining” are abstract, mental processes by which one can observe and calculate using pen and paper to fairly compare two types or sets of data and make determination based thereon.
Claim 10:
Mix the first signal (S1)and the second signal (S2) to obtain a mixed signal (M), which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see, for example, the Specification at [0069] describing the mixing process as a linear combination that includes the formula M(t)=a S 1(t)+b S 2 +C). Said operations as directed by the system are performed with the aid of a computer.
generate a first frequency spectrum based at least in part on the mixed signal (M) by subjecting the mixed signal (M) to a first integral transform, which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see, for example, the Specification at [0032] describing the process by integral transform; [0077] describing integral transform T to the missed signal M(t) in the form M→T[M]). Said operations as directed by the system are performed with the aid of a computer.
Generate…a second frequency spectrum based at least in part on the mixed signal (M) by subjecting the mixed signal (M) to a second integral transform different from the first integral transform, which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see, for example, the Specification at [0032] describing the process by integral transform; [0077] describing integral transform T to the missed signal M(t) in the form M→T[M]). Said operations as directed by the system are performed with the aid of a computer.
Compare…the first frequency spectrum with the second frequency spectrum, to select one of the first frequency spectrum and the second frequency spectrum for use in determining the state of the artery, the selection based on spectral differences of the first frequency spectrum and the second frequency spectrum indicative of the state of the artery, which is an abstract process step performed by mental assessment of comparing data and of mathematical analysis (see, for example, the Specification at [0032] describing the process by integral transform; [0077] describing integral transform T to the missed signal M(t) in the form M→T[M]). Said operation can be performed using pen and paper or with the aid of a computer.
Determine… whether the state of the artery is the active state or the passive state based on frequency components and corresponding amplitudes of the selected one of the first frequency spectrum and second frequency, wherein said operation is a mental step of comparing one data to another. There are no specific steps or parameters that define what is the process for said determining and under the BRI said operations can be performed by mental assessment.
Claim 11:
normalize the first signal (S1) and/or adapted to normalize the second signal (S2), which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see the Specification at [0073] describing the process of normalization as, for example: dividing the first signal S1(t) by a first maximum value |S1| attained by the first signal over the first time interval t1≤t≤T1 with predetermined interval boundaries t1, T1. Similarly, normalizing the second signal S2(t) may comprise dividing the second signal S2(t) by a second maximum value |S2| attained by the second signal over the second time interval t2≤t≤T2 with predetermined interval boundaries t2, T2). Said operations as directed by the system are performed with the aid of a computer.
Claim 12:
linearly combine the first signal (S1) and the second signal (S2), in particular with equal weights of the first signal (S1) and the second signal (S2) which is an abstract process step performed by mathematical analysis (see the Specification at [0032]). Said operations as directed by the system are performed with the aid of a computer.
Claim 14:
compare the frequency spectrum pertaining to the mixed signal (M) with a reference frequency spectrum, and/or with a second frequency spectrum, wherein said operation of “comparing” data is an abstract, mental process by which one can observe and calculate using pen and paper to fairly compare two types or sets of data. Said operations as directed by the system are performed with the aid of a computer.
Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover performance either in the mind (calculations by pen and paper) and performance by mathematical operation (calculation as per the recited specific equations as described in the Specification). The limitations of mix, generate, normalize, combine, perform transforms, compare, and determine do not require any particular element for which the human mind is not equipped. (MPEP 2106.04(a)). These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and providing certain results from the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in (Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind with pen and paper, and can include mathematical concepts.
Further, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (see, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674: noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind" (see Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis: Integration to a Practical Application
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under (2A)(2) provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim is said to fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1 and 10:
Obtaining, by at least one electrocardiogram sensor, electrocardiogram data of a subject to produce a first signal (S1) representative of the electrocardiogram data as a function of a time parameter; obtaining, by at least one physiological sensor, physiological data of the subject different from the electrocardiogram data to produce a second signal (S2) representative of the physiological data as a function of the time parameter, are operations that serve to get the data for computations in the abstract idea [data gathering], wherein those steps operate to perform functions of collecting the data needed to carry out the abstract idea. Amendments are interpreted herein as steps of obtaining data which further limit the type of data but wherein the data are still “obtained” on a computer and the data came from measurements from ECG and other physiological sensors. It is noted that no actual “measurements” using ECG or other sensors take place in the confines of the claims. As such, data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or on how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 2:
wherein the physiological data comprises rheogram data, in particular rheogram data of a blood vessel, further limiting the type of data and thus directed to the data gathering step as described above in claim 1.
Claim 10:
a system comprising…an acquisition unit adapted to…a mixing unit adapted to; a transform unit adapted to, wherein said “units” are interpreted as the algorithms that operate on said generic system and are part of a system representing a generic computer. As such, said system is a tool by which to perform said abstract ideas. The computer system recited in the preamble is generically described with no particular interactions between data, or specific structures of the computer. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims 11-14 further limit the “units” of the generic system that limit the additional elements in the independent claim above, for the same reasons.
Step 2B Analysis: Do Claims Provide an Inventive Concept
The claims are lastly evaluated using the (2B) analysis, wherein it is determined that because the claims recite abstract ideas, and do not integrate that abstract ideas into a practical application, the claims also lack a specific inventive concept. Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the inventive concept or the practical application and that the identification of whether the additional elements amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements of data gathering described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As directed in the Berkheimer memorandum of 19 April 2018 and set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, the prior art to Odinaka et al. (IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (2015) Vol. 10:16-27-IDS reference; cited previously) disclose methods and systems of getting signal data in the form of mechanical and electrical signals for the purpose of combing said state to improve performance for cardiovascular biometrics (see Odinaka et al. at p.16 at abstract). As such, those steps directed to getting signal data are well-known, routine and conventional in the art. Further art to WO2014/123512 to Brockway et al. (IDS reference; cited previously) disclose methods and systems of signal data gathering (abstract) and use of various “modules” in a computing environment to do so (Figure 29, as example). As such, those elements directed to the system to perform math (generic computer) are routine and conventional in signal processing arts.
The dependent claims have been analyzed with respect to step 2B and none of these claims provide a specific inventive concept, as they all fail to rise to the level of significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant states that, “amended claim 1 recites non-abstract, technical improvements over conventional approaches for non-invasively determining artery states by addressing challenges with differentiating between different states of the artery. (Specification at paras. [0003]-[0004].) The claimed solution of amended claim 1 addresses these problems by providing a method that provides a clearer and more accurate distinction between different states of the artery. (Specification at para. [0005]”. Applicant further includes that by mixing the first signal (Si) and the second signal (S2), generating two different frequency spectrums from the mixed signal, and comparing the two frequency spectrums to determine spectral differences, a frequency spectrum with spectral features providing a clearer indication of the state of the artery is selected and the state of the artery is able to be determined with improved accuracy over conventional approaches”.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. Applicant points to “improvements” that relate only to the recited judicial exceptions in the claims, i.e., mixing the first signal (Si) and the second signal (S2), generating two different frequency spectrums from the mixed signal, and comparing the two frequency spectrums to determine spectral differences, a frequency spectrum with spectral features providing a clearer indication of the state of the artery is selected and the state of the artery is able to be determined with improved accuracy over conventional approaches. However, the claims contain no integration or technical improvement with respect to applications of the judicial exceptions that provide additional elements herein other that those directed to obtaining data and the use of data gathering instruments. Applicant will kindly note that an improvement cannot be born from the judicial exception itself, but rather comes from some element in addition that by itself of when considering the claims a whole, provides for significantly more. It is further important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int'l V. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
Further, because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible.
It is suggested that application of said data manipulations are claimed wherein resolving the above issues under 112(b) would be helpful so as to implement a meaning to the steps of “comparing” the spectra such that identified states of an artery would be applied to actual indication of an passive (natural state) or an active state (rigid state) of an artery in a subject, for example.
Applicant likens the instant claims to those as in Ex Parte Desjardins and includes that “in the present case, amended claim 1 recites a software-based improvement that improves the accuracy of artery state determination. The claimed solution provides a technical solution to a technical problem because it does not merely collect and mathematically manipulate physiological data in the abstract. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a particular signal processing architecture that obtains electrocardiogram data from an electrocardiogram sensor and different physiological data from a physiological sensor, forms a mixed signal from those different time-dependent physiological inputs, generates different frequency spectra from that same mixed signal using different integral transforms, and then selects one of the spectra for determining whether the artery is in an active or passive state based on spectral differences indicative of the artery state. These ordered operations improve the way physiological signals are converted and analyzed so that frequency components and corresponding amplitudes that more clearly distinguish the active and passive artery states can be used for the final determination”.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. With respect to Ex parte Dejardins, said claims are directed to computer-implemented machine learning, per se, wherein under Step 2A, Prong One the claims were found to recite an abstract idea (mathematical concept) but under Step 2A, Prong Two, the specification was found to identify improvements to how the machine leaning model therein operated, which included specific training of a machine learning model to learn new tasks while still protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the specific problem of “catastrophic forgetting” that was encountered in the actual continued learning system. Importantly, the limitations from the claims supported said discernment and reflected the specific improvement to the machine. That is to say, the computer itself was improved. This is contrary to the instant claims wherein the improvement achieved is “better” analysis of biological data, and not improvement to the computer itself. The claims fail to include steps by which the computer is improved. Rather, the claims reflect getting data and performing mathematical steps to “determine” a condition. The condition determined is not a specific condition and thus cannot constitute a practical application either. In fact, the step of determining itself is, a mental abstract step and Applicant will kindly note that an improvement cannot be born from the judicial exception itself but rather comes from some element in addition that by itself of when considering the claims a whole, provides for significantly more. It is further important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept as in the Trading Tech example) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int'l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
As such, the claims remain patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The outstanding rejections under 35 USC 102 over Zong et al. (previously cited) and over 35 USC 103 to Zong et al. in view of Hafid et al. (previously cited) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments submitted herein and in view of Applicant’s arguments with respect to Zong et al. wherein Zong et al. or Zong et al. in view of Hafid et al. fail to teach or fairly suggest elements of the claim that include mixing a first-time dependent signal for ECG data with a second time-dependent signal of other physiological data from a different source to obtain a mixed signal and the generation of the frequency spectra as claimed.
Inquiries
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central Fax Center Number is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori A. Clow, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0715. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 11:00AM to 9:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to (571) 272-0547.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
/Lori A. Clow/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights